Posts Tagged ‘freedom’

A New Leaf

20 February 2018
fruit tree shoot

Springtime in Seattle, 2012.

In English we have an expression “turn over a new leaf” which means to make a new start. It literally refers to a page in a book, but of course this meaning of leaf is closely related to the one illustrated above.

As has already been mentioned in the previous post, my desire to build a new relationship with my church led me to the realization that my public-facing communications could use a change of context.

The Situation

Early this lifetime I came to a conclusion that I hope most can agree on: There is a situation on this planet. Situation is here defined as a major departure from the ideal scene.

In my younger years (the early 1960s) I was under the impression that we as a nation (the U.S.A.), if not the entire planet, were working towards an ideal scene. Here it is as expressed in one of our founding documents:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Then near the end of 1963 a duly elected – and rather popular – President was shot to death in public during a parade while he was visiting a city in Texas. A new administration took over from that man, which resulted in our country becoming very deeply involved in Vietnam, a war Kennedy hoped could be kept under control using only Special Forces troops. As more and more of our men died there, our involvement in the war in Vietnam became more and more unpopular, and was finally ended. The “Communists” then won the war, because they were more sensible rulers than those left in power by earlier colonizers and other outside interests.

Our government had immensely failed in effecting our “safety and happiness.” That failure was so obvious, it’s almost as if it was planned; and it may well have been.

To this day, there are huge holes in our understanding of what was really going on during the first half of the 20th century. And those holes only increased in size when we tried to look at and understand more recent events.

Doctors?

 

In the early 1980s I learned that the psychiatry or “Mental Health” movement was being pushed forward by men who shared certain personality traits that most of us would recognize as insane or psychotic. Those persons had their friends installed in various media and political organizations. If we want clean and honest public communication lines, we must remove those persons from control of those lines.

In the early years, those lines consisted mostly of English-language newspapers. Later those lines became dominated by radio and television. And now, since the the 1990s or so, we also have the internet which now feeds into a vast network of mobile “smart” phones.

These communication networks are not evil in themselves, but the persistent attempts by persons of criminal intent to dominate those lines has drastically reduced their usability (and believability) to the point that many people will not use those lines for anything other than gathering the most mundane forms of information, or commercial uses like shopping and banking.

The Search for Reliable Information

I didn’t get on the internet in any big way until 2009. Wikipedia was already very well-developed by that time and had become the de facto source of information about almost anything. However, on topics where facts or intentions are hotly contested, the “establishment” position tends to win out on Wikipedia, on TED, on all the major news sites, or any site attempting to present reliable information. This goes for almost any topic other than the most mundane (weather forecasts?) or boring (electronics and coding?).

What I did at that time was to start my own blog. There I would present and compare data from multiple sources in the hopes of giving readers a more insightful view of things than what was being fed to them by the mainstream sources.

This activity had two main problems: 1) nobody read it, and 2) too many data sources were questionable or antagonistic to real spiritual betterment. I was trying to demonstrate to my readers that there existed certain basic phenomena of life that were widely agreed on and widely researched. Yet I kept falling over false data that others were going into agreement with.

My plan is to revise this site to make it more resource-oriented and less discussion-oriented. Discussion has its place, but that’s not what is happening on the web as it is currently organized.

Technical Limitations

The internet was created to provide its initial users (mostly data scientists in academia and the military-industrial complex) with faster data sharing capabilities, which data might include – in the case of the military – strategic and actionable data of a confidential nature.

Some of the earliest websites looked basically like search windows and were used to find scientific papers and other technical information, somewhat on the order of a giant library.

Additionally, any services that earlier used telex lines were obvious candidates for switching over to the internet. This included news feeds, stock tickers, and private messaging of course.

But it was not long before commerce was being conducted over the internet, and this use quickly became the dominant use. About 1/2 of all internet websites today are .com sites. And this means that what most website designers are trying to do is maximize traffic. Today, social networking is widely understood as a way to give commercial sites access to a lot of potential customers. The sharing of useful information on the internet, its original educational use, has been buried under all the subsequent traffic; a development that should have been quite predictable.

The blog is a sort of personal news feed service. It presents your posts in reverse chrono order, most recent on top, like the news. “Free” blogs are used – often blatantly – for advertising, and so are “free” e-mail and social media accounts.

About two-thirds (68%) of internet users disapprove of search engines and websites tracking their online behavior for the purpose of ad targeting.
– Pew Research, 13 March 2012.

While internet shopping is very popular compared to using the internet to seek useful data or advice (except as it concerns which product to buy), many people use the internet for that purpose or assume that it can be used that way. This group especially includes young people in school. I know it also includes all sorts of engineers and other “geek” types.

People want good data, but the internet concentrates on giving them news, blogs, ads and messages commonly associated with entertainment or commerce, not associated with making smart decisions.

Thus if I want to use my blog to help people make smarter decisions in their lives, I must realize that this is not what my blog was designed to do, and I am going to need to compensate for that.

The changes I will be making in the site reflect that realization.

Advertisements

Richard Stallman and Freedom

15 November 2017

Today (Wednesday, 15th Nov 2017) I went to see Richard Stallman give a presentation on Free Software.

He was being hosted by a California State project to re-write the Child Welfare website (including backend) using Free Software. Most of the attendees were state employees involved in the project. I was there because I had gotten an email about the event from the Free Software Foundation. Though rain clouds threatened, I went ahead and made the approximately 10 mile bike ride over to Natomas where the state government has a bunch of buildings in a nice industrial park.

Richard is about 1-1/2 years older than me. He was born in New York City (per Wikipedia) and acts like it. He became proficient in writing computer programs while in high school, and was working as a programmer even as he continued his education.

In his early years, he worked at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence laboratory, then funded largely through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).

As software and computing became more popular, Richard noticed that most companies were keeping their code (the higher-language representation of the program) secret. He objected to this on the grounds that in a free society, code should be published like other forms of literature, so it could be studied and learned from.

He started integrating his ideas into a coherent ideology with the birth of the GNU project in 1983. The NU in GNU stands for “not Unix” which was meant to emphasize that the GNU system was all Free Software, though it functioned a lot like Unix. Beyond that, the gnu is a native name for the African wildebeest, which is used as the project’s mascot.

At the presentation today, Richard went through his basic philosophy about Free Software and gave some examples of how proprietary software has been used against the higher cause of freedom in society.

Is it really all about profit?

Richard thinks that the existence of non-free or anti-freedom software can be explained by profit motive. This has been a common argument from “progressive” circles concerning many political and economic weaknesses. I think this is not an intellectually rigorous explanation.

I don’t say that because I’m so smart. I am simply aware of research that points to other factors.

But I will say this about profit:
In a political-economic context, profit is seen as necessary in order to retain investors. Who would invest in an activity that couldn’t repay the investment, with interest? Beyond the fact that this itself is a weak argument, I also see it as unnecessarily complex.

What a business has to do first to pay a profit to shareholders is to have more income than expenses. But that is just common sense. In a world of machines – and biological entities are a type of machine – you need to put more energy into the system than you will get out as work. The remainder is waste energy, which is used by biology but “dumped” by most machine systems.

If you can make more than you spend, you can pay investors a profit. Or on the scale of a single human being, you can save for a child’s education, or for old age. And by the way, did you include raising a family in your list of expenses? So, we have pressures on the producers in an economy to “make a profit” whether it’s their stockholders or their children that they are responsible to.

I believe this basically evaporates the argument of “profit motive.”

Criminality

What we have left, though, is something very obvious that the “progressives” don’t talk much about: Criminality.

As I am “musing” in this article I will opine on why the “progressives” have this problem. My theory – and not just mine, nor my origination particularly – is that an approach to life commonly referred to as “psychology” has infiltrated its way into American life, and the “progressive” movement in particular. It is not that there is something wrong with the study of the mind. It is only that the history of this particular brand of psychology we are seeing on Earth suggests it was financed and supported, if not actually created, by persons who wished to develop a sort of intellectual framework, or propaganda mechanism, that would serve to explain or justify “bad” behavior anywhere from mildly rude to morally reprehensible.

What has arisen from this effort is a jumble of loosely-related ideas, including concepts like Moral Relativism, and Situational Ethics. The bulk of these concepts are confused and under-developed, but when paired up with Psychology as our best attempt to understand human thought and behavior, they can establish a basis to justify almost any action, no matter how evil.

In short, the criminal – especially one in government or business – has a problem: How can I harm those around me while maintaining my supposedly legitimate position in society? And I am saying that one answer he has reached for was: Use Psychology.

In this wise, a criminal is explained as a person in a “bad” situation, or someone who was brought up wrong. In a company it could be someone being forced to make a profit, resulting in his making very bad choices. The answer is to be kind to everybody and make sure everyone has enough to eat, spend etc. This argument is warm and fuzzy, but I think demonstrably unworkable.

If the criminal is really a type of personality, like the psychopath of classic psychiatry (now called “psychodynamic theory”), then being kind to him will not change his behavior. He has a compulsive urge to harm secretly. Thus, my theory that modern “psychology” was produced by and for criminals, as it fails miserably to solve the problem of crime (when it addresses it directly at all).

Modern “psychology” totally ignores past lives and their influence on present-life behavior, even though this has been the most productive research avenue during the previous century that yielded new understandings about human behavior.

Self-correction?

A very major segment of the people I have been exposed to who are out there communicating ideas seem to believe that to make a person aware of a sub-standard behavior will lead to correction.

I don’t know why this idea remains so strong in people, as I see almost no support for it in the extreme cases where self-correction has been most needed and most lacking.

One example of this type of thinking is gun control. What gun control advocates seem to be saying is that if we make certain types of guns illegal or difficult to obtain, a person who wishes he could go out and blow everybody’s head off will become aware that this is wrong behavior and self-correct into some more acceptable approach. This idea is totally ridiculous.

Yet a progressive-oriented person like Richard Stallman, as fine and upstanding as his ideas are, thinks that if we just make Free Software more popular, those using anti-free software will eventually self-correct and see the error of their ways. If that were to really happen, purveyors of anti-free software might give in, simply on the basis that they could no longer sell their products to anyone. But what I am suggesting is that the criminals among them would not self-correct. They would just find alternative methods to perform criminal acts and protect their secrets.

What anti-free is really all about

Mr. Stallman, as well as many on the “right” who argue for more freedom, are not aware of the research I am aware of, I am quite sure. And while I may not be able to explain that research with total clarity here, I do think it is worth our while to at least be aware of it.

 

The point is that “psychology” never figured all this out. The ideas and methodologies that did figure it out have been around for over 50 years. They were rejected by psychology. Why? Probably because they could lead to greater freedom! But also because psychology was being influenced by criminals, who are extremely afraid of freedom. Not just mentally dull about it; VERY afraid of it. Freedom includes the ability to see through others’ secrets. This ability would render a criminal helpless. This may be the bigger reason that criminals are involved in anti-free technologies, software being just one of them.

It was good to see Richard Stallman. I had heard a lot about him over the years. His heart is in a good place, but I don’t think his solutions will get society where he’d like it to go. He needs to understand it better first. Anti-free is more deeply entrenched in the minds of men – and particularly managers – than he realizes. The solutions exist at a deeper level than he is currently aware of. That they exist in any form at all is a minor miracle.

Food and Travel with Anthony Bourdain

4 October 2016

After a second exposure to Bourdain’s shows during a layover at the bus station in Portland, I wanted to write a bit about these shows.

For some reason, his Parts Unknown show on Libya, which dates from 2013, was being re-broadcast that day in Portland. I also saw his show on Istanbul (Turkey).

Some time ago I’d seen at least one of his shows featuring Chinese foods.

On this more recent occasion, I’d just finished eating a very decent hamburger at the new café at the Portland bus station, and had also gone through 3 brochures printed for travelers which – who couldn’t guess – all focused on food.

The show on Libya was blatantly anti-Gaddafi, portraying him as a hopelessly misled and ruthless dictator. The more basic fact is that Gaddafi was anti-West. If you look at what the West has done during its period of dominance over the planet, and where Gaddafi lived (in an Arab nation), this attitude would not be unexpected.

The Istanbul show was very unsure about the “goodness” of Erdoğan, and sympathetic to the Kurds. Erdoğan, for his part, has been vacillating in his support of NATO, particularly after learning that they may have had something to do with the recent coup attempt.

The West’s War of Ideas

The tactic that has been followed by the West in its conquest of the planet is to portray its opponents as “anti-freedom” rather than anti-West, and to fight against them on the basis that they are “bad” rather than that they are simply enemies. Over the centuries of European expansion into other areas of the planet, this tactic has taken many forms. It was particularly convoluted when it turned against other Europeans, such as the Germans before, through, and after WWII. In many times and places it was eventually backed away from, such as in the American colonies and later in countries like India. But this only meant that the intention to hold sway over these areas became more understated, or covert.

What is really exactly happening on the planet remains subject to debate, as no facts seem clear enough to be totally persuasive. But I find the whole argument regarding how the media (print, radio, TV, internet) has been subverted by these European-centered interests to be very persuasive. Thus on a secondary (if not primary) level, shows like Bourdain’s become propaganda vehicles for the West’s viewpoint on life and politics.

Travel and Food

The Western idea of a “successful” person is one who can enjoy travel and food in his older years, if not during his entire life. Anthony fits this definition and thus becomes a role model (winning valence) to be imitated. His neo-liberalism then comes along as part of the package. It is a basically synthetic attitude that the entertainment industry likes to develop in its celebrities to convince us that there are no higher awarenesses worth pursuing. This limits us to the lesser games of liberal-versus-conservtive, or progressive-versus-traditionalist.

Until I was introduced to Hubbard’s work, I was convinced that the game of life was limited roughly as stated above. My only problem was that the managing groups were obviously lying to us about some things, and I could not understand why. There also seemed to be a lot more violence going on than was really necessary.

Freedom

To go where you want and eat what you want are considered the ultimate attributes of freedom in the West. If this means you kill a few basically innocent people along the way, that fact has no basic bearing on the overall facts concerning how the game of life is limited. Or so we are being told.

What Hubbard taught is that a higher-level game of life has been operating for a very long time, and that our managers have an interest in keeping us unaware of this.

At the higher levels, management as we know it becomes unnecessary or irrelevant. If we were to aspire to these higher levels, what would our managers do? The most entrenched among them are hopeless to the point of total unknowing on the possibility of moving themselves up to a higher level of game. Thus, if some of us were able to achieve this state, it would appear to them as a threat to their very existence (which it would not actually be). So, they reactively – if not consciously – oppose any trend towards an awareness of the higher levels of the game. And their “enemies” have become anyone with an interest in working at those higher levels.

Thus their “enemies” become anyone with a serious interest in higher spiritual abilities. That includes all the followers of the more ancient teachings – mostly the aboriginal peoples of this planet – as well as various renegade groups within the framework of monotheism as well as beyond it, and their attempts to re-invent religion or spiritual practice into something more workable and true to genuine human aspirations.

The handling for these “enemies” has been to invent various pretexts for going to war with them and killing them off. That this has not in fact been very effective does not seem to phase the managers; they have no other “solution” to this “problem.”

The Role of Aesthetics in Propaganda

Aesthetics are needed to give the basically low-awareness propaganda of the managers of the West an appeal to their target audiences, those who seek a higher awareness. You can just lie to the others and they will accept it. To convince this target audience is a little more tricky.

Anthony’s shows are examples of this use of aesthetics. They are very artfully shot, and very carefully assembled. All aesthetic aspects are given attention, including the artfulness of the food itself, and the places being visited. The sound track, the music; they are all carefully put together for every show. This type of treatment has always been a “hook” to help pull in the seekers of higher awareness.

Do ordinary people who have lost interest in higher realms watch Anthony’s shows? I doubt it. But a lot of people who have been asking questions and playing around with spiritual ideas do watch his shows, I bet. These are people still on the fence, unsure of themselves spiritually. There are a lot of them and they are important politically. Liberated, they are capable of getting a lot of good done. Captive, they are capable of preventing a lot from getting done. The old-line managers want to keep these people on their side. And the new-line groups want to add these people to their ranks more than any other type of person.

The Future

What we all face, of course, is the future. What Scientologists, and many others to a lesser extent, know is that we will be in that future. We may or may not forget who we were before. We may or may not have the same adventurous approach to life we chose this lifetime. But – good or bad – we will be there. So we are intimately connected to the future on a long-term basis, not just in the context of one lifetime, or the lifetimes of our children.

The materialists and fence-sitters are unsure of this at best, and totally unaware of this at worst. They are turning away from the whole subject of responsibility, even if their own future experience is at stake. They can’t allow themselves to believe that they could be that responsible.

Some posit this as a “war.” But that is only true on the lower levels. The truth of the situation is that those who want to “ascend” cannot do so simply by “getting rid” of those who don’t want to. In the short term, it is highly advisable to minimize one’s exposure to such people (one reason I don’t watch television as a habit). But in the long term, we will have to bring them all along with us, or they will return later to try again to pull us back down again. So, it would not be incorrect to characterize this as a “struggle.” LRH has described it as “a game where everyone wins.” Well, they know that there are always losers in a game. LRH posits that the loser in this case is the “bank” (that portion of the mind that produces non-survival ideas and actions). But most people are as yet unaware that this exists as something separate from themselves. That problem defines the first hurdle in this struggle.

On the other side of this struggle lies a future that is difficult for most to even imagine. It involves a knowing and causative separation from the physical world, including the physical forms of life (biology, etc.), yet the probable indefinite continuation of the physical world in some form. It involves a knowing conviction of our own immortality without necessarily totally turning away from the various “thrills” of physicality. It involves ideas and experiences which we have – in theory – never experienced before, which would be entirely new.

For me right now, the most important thing that future holds is an abiding respect for truth; an end to all the fouler forms of secrecy and deception; and a chance for great happiness for every being who desires it.

Could Anthony and his show exist in this future? It probably could. But it would be minus the lies and pretense that encumber it now. After all, there are a lot of “parts unknown” left in this universe! We can’t all visit all of them ourselves. Or could we?

Epilogue

On 8 June 2018 Anthony was found dead in his room while he was working on a Parts Unknown episode in France. The media is saying suicide.

Commentators applaud his basic love of humanity – of the common man – and this is a very worthy attribute.

Let him be remembered as the good person he undoubtedly was.

My Take on Cloud Atlas

8 December 2012

Cloud Atlas is a novel that was turned into a movie by the Wachowski brothers (Matrix) with the help of another director and independent funding, including a contribution from the German government. It was all shot in Germany.

I have not read the novel. I saw the movie on the evening of Saturday December 1st in Portland. I then read the Wikipedia article on it.

The book, I get the impression, was divided up into six stories, starting with one set in the 1800s. In the movie, an “ensemble” of actors play various roles in different stories, and the stories are intermixed. You get the impression that various characters in different times and places are actually the same spiritual being, because those characters are played by the same actor. I don’t know how this is handled in the book.

The Stories

The stories start in the 1800s with a tale involving a sailing trip. We see a young man concluding a business agreement with someone in a tropical country. As they tour the plantation, the young man witnesses a whipping and faints. He is then put under the charge of a doctor who decides to slowly poison him and blame it on a tropical disease, in order to get his hands on the young man’s valuables. Meanwhile, the slave who was whipped has stowed away in the young man’s cabin, and appears – asking for his help to prove himself capable of been a free man. The young man agrees and the slave wins his freedom. At the end of the voyage, the ex-slave discovers the doctor’s plot and kills the doctor. The young man survives, reunites with his young wife, who he had been corresponding with during his voyage, and they renounce her father, who does business with slave owners, and leave to become abolitionists.

The next story, a tad unrelated to the first, is set in the early 1900s. It involves an aspiring musician who has a taste for sex with his own gender. This musician succeeds in gaining access to a failed composer and ghost-writing several pieces for him, which brings him back to fame. He then writes his own piece, which he calls the “Cloud Atlas Sextet,” and determines to promote it on his own – regardless of his agreement with the composer. When the composer tries to stop him from doing this, the musician shoots him (but doesn’t kill him) and then must hide out from the law until he finishes his piece. He then kills himself, leaving the publishing of the work to his male lover.

Following this story we have one set in the 1970s. A young woman investigative journalist runs across a plot to allow a nuclear reactor to blow up, giving nuclear power a bad name. It seems to be funded by oil interests. Everyone who helps her loses their lives. She is helped by a security officer for the nuclear power company who knew her father. They are pursued by a professional assassin, but with the help of a Latino lady he is killed.

The next story takes place in more or less the present time. A failing book publisher runs into financial luck when one of his authors notoriously kills a book critic at a party. The publisher is now pursued by thugs sent by a creditor, and goes to his brother to ask for help. His brother, in the guise of helping him, gets him locked up in a high-security old folks home. He then plans and carries out an escape with three others who also value their freedom. Their pursuers get beaten up by a bunch of soccer fans in a pub where they go to celebrate their escape. In a somewhat separate story line, we see this publisher writing about this whole adventure. He is writing what seems to be a screenplay for a movie. In this story he redeems himself in the eyes of the lover of his youth, and they reunite to live happily.

The next story happens approximately 100 years forward from the last. It is set in Korea (Seoul) and depicts an automated civilization in which bodies are manufactured and killed (then recycled into food and more bodies) at the whim of the controlling group. The slave masters seem to have won with finality. But they rule over a decaying and war-torn world, and the urge to be free has not died. One slave asserts her independence one day and is killed by her handlers in public. Another slave, seeing this, feels the need to escape. She is assisted in this by a member of the resistance movement who shows her how the system really works (the recycling of dead bodies). She agrees to broadcast an announcement for the resistance over a hacked communication channel, and thus wins public fame. She is then captured and killed, after being interrogated by an “archivist.”

The final story is set in a post-apocalyptic land where peaceful people try to protect themselves from cannibalistic marauders who ride horses. An ET, stranded on earth with a small crew, persuades one of the peaceful ones to assist her to locate an old communications station located on top of a mountain. The station, it turns out, is called Cloud Atlas. They finally locate the station and contact her planet, which then sends out a rescue ship. But meanwhile the man’s village has been attacked by the cannibals, and all killed save one little girl who successfully hid herself. With the help of the ET woman, the man and girl escape. Through this whole story, the man is plagued by a “ghost” in a top hat which tries to get him to do the wrong thing instead of the right thing. But the ET’s love and determination to survive is stronger than the ghost, and the man’s evil intentions are finally overcome.

The Ensemble

The cast of characters is lead by Tom Hanks, who plays the evil doctor in the first story and the man who helps the ET in the last story. In between he plays several other characters who struggle with their moral choices, including the criminal who kills the book critic.

Another main character is the ET woman played by Halle Berry. She also plays the young abolitionist in the first story, a daughter of the composer in the second story, and the reporter in the third story. This being, then, remains pure throughout the entire piece.

Hugo Weaving, of Matrix fame (Agent Smith), plays a string of bad guys, including the 1970’s hired assassin. He seems to be a being thoroughly caught up in the various games of power and unwilling or unable to free himself.

An oriental actress Doona Bae plays the girl who marries the young man in the first story, the Latino woman, and the slave girl in New Seoul. She is a parallel to the Halle Berry character in many ways, but more caught up in the system.

Another set of important characters are those played by the black actors Keith David and David Gyasi. These include the slave in the first story, the man who helped the reporter in the third story, and one of the ETs in the last story. Here are competent beings who have principles and are willing to live by them.

Hugh Grant also plays many roles, usually someone “successful” but with compromised principles. He plays these roles strongly, and I had difficulty knowing what to think about these characters. They achieve a kind of “freedom” for themselves by playing within the system, but they don’t seem happy; they know they have betrayed their own integrity.

Themes

My friends told me “you have to see Cloud Atlas – it’s about past lives!” Well, it is, kind of. But I would not describe it that way. I think it uses the idea of past lives as a way to explain the continuity of human experience over extended periods of time. And this is a very valid explanation. But the film does not dwell on it.

What the film does dwell on is the continued and persistent arrogance of the “dominant” race on earth (oddly, the only race with recessive genes for skin color) to maintain power through any convenient myth that they can appropriate, but particularly the genetics myth, and what has become known as “social Darwinism.” This manifests as a teaching that society is the way it is because it was meant to be that way.

In opposition to this is the shared urge towards freedom of all people. This urge is not handled carefully or finely in this film, but rather coarsely. It deserves more contemplation than this movie gave it, yet I suppose we should be grateful that it appeared as a theme at all.

A dominant, but to me unwanted, theme in this movie was the topic of sexual confusion. We had the gay composer, his lover who played a woman in another story, and various other crossed-sex roles, such as Susan Sarandon playing a technologist in New Seoul. It is not that this topic is unworthy, but that it was used in this film as a way to make the story line even more confusing than it already was. It is quite true that the fact of past lives can indeed cause gender confusion in people. But that connection was not dealt with in this story.

Outcomes

The urge towards freedom did not win out in these stories; the urge to find a mate and reproduce did. And that, again, is genetics.

Genetics is also very involved in the various New Age teachings, and in most of the “channeled” material being presented to us.

They want us to focus on the “problem” of genetics, which I believe is a manufactured problem. Like the “problem” of Mid-East terrorists, or “global warming”. These problems have been manufactured by the power structure to keep us attached to their game. All these subjects ARE problems – for THEM! It is their genetics that are failing, their lives and property being endangered by criminal elements, and their planet – which they think they own – being threatened by cosmic shifts that they have little or no control over.

But the big problem for the rest of us, I believe, is actually freedom. This whole power game being played on this planet by what are basically a collection of criminal groups has the rest of us all caught up in activities that we would rather have no part of – be free of. War, murder, robbery are not things that suit most of us. Yet on a planet ruled by criminals, these activities become commonplace.

 

Do you want a future such as the one portrayed in Cloud Atlas? This year is only 2012. We still have time to change the course of events. There is much to learn about freedom, and if you desire it you owe it to yourself to learn more about it.

Tell the Truth Movement

31 July 2012

“Tell the truth” is an effort to create a viral movement on the web. – Me

My main article about this is on my newer blog here.

It explains to some extent how I got the idea for starting a Twitter “movement” scheduled to continue through to the end of this year.

The idea is a little whimsical, but it was born out of a desire to do – something.

From the point of view of someone who was raised to be honest, then later worked for over 25 years an a group that understands the spiritual dynamics of dishonesty, as well as the more practical results, I walked back into a society that is obviously…

…built on lies.

When you build a whole civilization on false premises, those who dwell in it can come to find themselves in a very difficult condition. When things go wrong, they are virtually helpless to correct the situation. Because they will be lied to about what caused the problem, will believe the lies, and then will work to correct a wrong target, which will only result in another situation for the group – often much worse than the first.

To demand the truth…

…is only the first step in a potentially quite long process of repair. And of course, there is no guarantee that just because truth is demanded, that truth is what will be delivered.

But, if nothing else, my “movement” serves as a clean statement of purpose. Survival, and beyond that, abundance, depends on those trying to survive having access to true data. Thus “tell the truth” equates, roughly, to “we want life” “we want prosperity” “we want happiness” and “we want peace.” It is a demand that is sufficiently challenging to, perhaps, improve the honesty and responsibility even of those making the demand. And that is very very key.

I hope the idea catches on.